[PATCH] D65643: unittests: Add a (centralized) ability to match std::error_code

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sammccall added a comment.

I'm lacking a bit of context here.
Why do we prefer this to `EXPECT_FALSE(err)` /`EXPECT_EQ(err, std::errc_address_in_use)` with an appropriate value printer for `std::error_code`?

Apart from being a bit more obscure, here the Failed() matcher doesn't provide any overload to specify the code, so this api seems to encourage people not to specify the code even if they know it.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D65643/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D65643